Dr. Ali Muhammad Yasin – College of Islamic Sciences – University of Karbala
A full century and two years ago, the Iraqi people rose in revolt in these days of June against the British occupation, rejecting the domination and guardianship imposed by Great Britain on the oppressed and voiceless nations under the power of arms, and the threat of the fleets and bombs coming from across the seas. The Iraqis did not stand idle despite their limited resources and lack of armament compared to the capabilities of a vast empire on which the sun never set back then, and in comparison to the overwhelming power that had subdued both the East and the West alike. In this brief article, we will attempt to shed light on the position of the intellectual represented at that time, or symbolized by the religious scholar, who belonged to a cultural institution – the Islamic seminaries. These seminaries began in the early 5th century AH and continued to fulfill their mission of spreading religious and legal sciences since that time and until the present day, passing through the time of the 1920 Revolution, which bewildered the occupiers and confounded their leaders in understanding the spiritual depth embodied by the simple Iraqi resistors who loved their freedom and independence in a strange manner.
The efforts of the Islamic seminaries aimed at spreading Islamic awareness and deepening its paths in society, extending their religious duty and their firm belief in their doctrinal convictions, without even thinking for a moment of retreating from their responsibility, which was required by their moral and national obligation. This is exactly as it was intended in their establishment as an institution responsible for connecting the nation to its eternal spiritual heritage and to its noble human values derived from divine revelations and a book that guides to what is better…
In light of this steadfast position, the steps of the scholars and Shiite references in their political and social stances over many centuries were as such. Among these noble stances was the position of the well-known Jihadist Sheikh al-Shari’ah during the Great Revolution of 1920 in Iraq.
Sheikh al-Shari’ah is Fath Allah bin Muhammad Jawad, born in Isfahan in 1266 AH, who migrated to the seat of knowledge, Najaf, in 1295 AH. This migration coincided with the turbulent events and circumstances of the British occupation of Iraq and the resulting tragedies and calamities still etched in the memory of generations.
During these difficult times, Sheikh al-Shari’ah took over the leadership of the religious reference and directly led the Revolution of 1920 after the death of its first leader, Muhammad Taqi al-Shirazi, who was poisoned by the agents of the occupation. Sheikh al-Shari’ah worked to unify the revolution’s factions by forming a supreme leadership that included many prominent figures from different Iraqi communities. Meanwhile, the British were planning to dismantle this national unity by offering the idea of negotiation, which divided the revolutionaries into factions either supporting or opposing it. Sheikh al-Shari’ah led the faction that rejected negotiation with the British, issuing his famous statement, “No negotiation before evacuation,” emphasizing that he would continue to fight them “with a sword, with a scythe, and with a hoe” if ammunition ran out!
The British relied on several calculated policies to enforce their colonial rule, the most obvious of which were policies of oppression and intimidation. They also used methods of persuasion and co-optation, succeeding in imposing their hegemony over time, considering themselves a great global power at that time, unparalleled by the primitive weapons possessed by the revolting tribes and factions. However, they found themselves unable to deal with a resilient intellectual, a scholar who stood in their way. This intellectual was the scholar/ jurist, and some of the notable names of that time included al-Haboubi, Kadhim Yazdi, Muhammad Taqi al-Shirazi, Sheikh al-Shari’ah, and other scholars from our seminaries. Their religious-political discourse, rooted in deep religious legitimacy, made the colonialists realize that this was the most unsettling and potent form of cultural discourse against them, capable of undermining their centralizing projects in the Muslim East. The brilliant scholars understood the dangerous dimensions of British imperialistic rhetoric, which sought to impose a Western cultural model. They confronted this with determination and responsibility, contributing to its downfall and failure.
One can examine the discourse of Sheikh al-Shari’ah al-Isfahani – may God have mercy on him – in his response to the military governor Wilson, where we have excerpted parts of his letter from the Book of the Great Iraqi Revolution by historian Abdul Razzaq al-Husseini (p. 217). We begin by presenting parts of a letter sent by the governor to Sheikh al-Shari’ah on August 27, 1920, as mentioned in the source:
From Wilson’s letter:
“To His Eminence, Sheikh al-Shari’ah al-Isfahani – may his rank be elevated, after greetings and inquiry about your health, we remind you that the views of your predecessor, the great scholar Muhammad Taqi al-Shirazi, were in favor of peace between the government and the nation, and avoiding the shedding of blood, and that you also share this noble sentiment. As for our government, it is well known that the great British Empire has always relied on three pillars in its policy: mercy, justice, and religious tolerance…”
Sheikh al-Shari’ah responded to this letter in a way that we summarize as follows:
Sheikh al-Shari’ah’s response:
“To the General Governor in Baghdad,
We received your letters dropped by your aircraft and printed in the Iraq newspaper. It is strange that your letter has already been answered by us long before you wrote it. We warned you and advised you, telling you to rectify the situation before it gets out of hand. Surely, you know that this could have been resolved by granting the Iraqis their rights, which they peacefully requested, but you refused and placed your fingers in your ears, applying oppression and cruelty, exiling, killing, and imprisoning people unjustly…”
This is a summary of the letter from the jurist Sheikh al-Shari’ah. It is a long letter, and we can make some observations about the cultural sphere in which each of these men operates. Each belongs to a completely different cultural system. Some of these observations are:
- Wilson’s discourse was closed, defensive, and steeped in arrogance, focusing on elevating the self at the expense of the other. In contrast, Sheikh al-Shari’ah’s discourse was open and dialogical, focusing on the oppression of the Iraqi people and their right to a free and dignified life, chosen by their own will.
- Wilson’s letter carried the weight of colonial power and its accompanying culture of imperialism, reminding Sheikh al-Shari’ah of the might of the British military machine, while Sheikh al-Shari’ah’s response was a cultural counter-discourse, exposing the true intentions of the occupier and stripping away the false claims of mercy, humanity, justice, and religious tolerance.
- When Wilson referred to the revolutionaries as “corruptors,” Sheikh al-Shari’ah referred to them as “seekers of truth.” In the eyes of the intellectual/jurist, they were the true agents of change, and he placed his absolute trust in their potential to reshape the future toward a promised tomorrow filled with the light of freedom and dignity.
- Despite the imbalance of forces, Sheikh al-Shari’ah’s discourse represented not only a challenge to the occupiers but also a refusal to submit to their threats. Recognizing the military might of the occupier, Sheikh al-Shari’ah maintained his position of resistance, illustrating an Islamic model of strength and courage, which perplexed the enemy who could not comprehend the source of such power among the simple Iraqi people, who feared nothing but their Creator!
